Point of Law: Article 300A of the Constitution clearly specifies that no citizen can be deprived of his property, save by authority of law.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the respondents in W.P. (C) No. 26466 of 2020 challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 6.10.2021, whereby the writ petition was allowed holding as follows:

“9. In the light of this finding, according to me, there cannot be any such restriction on alienation in the sale-deed. Admittedly there is no case to the respondents that any amount is due to the respondents as on today. In such circumstances there cannot be any such condition in the sale-deed.

10. As far as the second contention about the enhancement of land value is concerned, this Court directed the Standing Counsel to find out whether there is any enhancement of land value by any competent authority or by Court. The Standing Counsel, after getting instructions, submitted that there is no amount to be paid by the petitioners towards compensation for enhanced land value as on today. If that is the case, such clauses are not necessary in the sale-deed.

11. The third apprehension raised by the respondents is that if this Court interferes with the clauses in the sale-deed, the others will also come before this Court and there will be difficulty to the respondents. I think this is not at all a reason to reject a rightful claim of the petitioners. If there is any illegality, parties will approach the court and they will redress their grievance from the court. Apprehending that the others will approach this Court, this Court cannot deny a legal right. Therefore, according to me, the contentions raised by the respondents will not stand. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

(1) The respondents will execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners for Plot No. II/5 without including clauses 6.3 and 6.4 in Ext.P3 draft sale-deed, if all other conditions are complied by the petitioners.

(2) The sale-deed will be executed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if there is no other legal impediment.”

It is challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, the appeal is filed.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: Petitioners applied for a Type-B residence at Edathala Housing Scheme, launched by the Greater Cochin Development Authority, first appellant, which was known as Edathala Housing Scheme-Phase II, for which acquisition was made under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Town Planning Act in force. In that course of action, property situated in Re-Sy. No. 324/12.22.23, in Block No. 35 of Aluva East Village, Aluva Taluk was acquired intending to construct houses and to sell such houses for residential accommodation in accordance with the Edathala Housing Scheme Prepared.

3. Petitioners were allotted a house under Type-II category. Petitioners paid an advance of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards sale price and the sale price was estimated at Rs. 8,68,525/- out of which an amount of Rs. 7,70,000/- was towards building cost and Rs. 98,525/- towards price of the property. Therefore, after adjusting advance payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- the balance sale price of Rs. 5,68,525/- together with interest @ 9% per annum was calculated for repayment in 300 equated monthly installments of Rs. 4772/- each. Accordingly, the agreement regarding repayment was executed by and between the parties in the month of May, 2008 and from 2008 onwards the petitioners along with family are residing in the house and have been paying the installments without any default. The entire amount as per the agreement was paid and the loan account was closed. Therefore, a sale-deed has to be executed by the Greater Cochin Development Authority. But, the Greater Cochin Development Authority is insisting on certain conditions including that the property shall not be sold for a period of 10 years, to be incorporated in the sale-deed, which according to the petitioners are absolutely illegal.

4. The case p